LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Supreme Court Will Not Re-evaluate Evidence Absent Miscarriage of Justice
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, the Supreme Court will not review the evidence a third time unless it has been demonstrated that these findings constitute a miscarriage of justice or that an error of substantive or procedural law was perpetrated.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Ndukwe v. Acha (1998) NLC-2221991(SC) at p. 19; Paras A–B.
"As there have been two concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts on all the issues… it will be futile… for us to be called upon to review the evidence a third time… when it has not been demonstrated that these decisions… constitute a miscarriage of justice or that an error of substantive or procedural law was perpetrated."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Concurrent findings of fact are binding on the Supreme Court. The court will not re-evaluate evidence. Interference requires miscarriage of justice or error of law. The appellant bears a heavy burden. The principle promotes finality and judicial efficiency. The court respects the fact-finding roles of lower courts. The rule applies to both civil and criminal appeals. The appellant must show perversity or substantial error. The Supreme Court will not substitute its own view. The principle is well-established.